Få Shaheder i nattens terrorbombning -lyckat ukrainskt motanfall söder om Pokrovsk

Bastumannen har tagit in en intressant gästskriibent

09.04.2025 uppdateringen med gästartikel nr 2 av Pika. Jag vill påpeka två saker här i början. Den första är att Pika är väl insatt i både den amerikanska militärindustrin såväl som i den Ukrainska. Han känner väl till våra frontbrigader samt deras kommendanter och är väl uppdaterad i realtid över vad som sker. Han har dessutom varit 2 ggr med mig ut till fronten och lärt känna våra frontsoldater, även knutit vänskapsband med flera av våra bästa soldater.
Den andra saken jag vill påpeka är Trumpetens krav på att NATO medlemmarna skall satsa 5% av BNP på försvaret. Detta är en utopi och våt dröm, inte ens USA kommer att kunna komma upp till denna siffra. Polen som redan har storsatsat och nått 3,4% kommer inte heller inom de kommande åren upp till 5%. Finland är just nu på 2,4% och satt som mål att nå 3%, medan Sverige nu är på 1,5%.
Frontlinjerna är stort sett i stiltje, så förblir de ifall hjälpen stannar på samma nivå som nu. Ok med en korttidssatsning kan vi ta tillbaka en del av våra ockuperade områden. Målet att ta tillbaka allt inklusive Krim kommer att kosta lika mycket som 10% av Europas BNP. Eftersom Europa först måste nå 3% av BNP i försvarsutgifter för att kunna försvara sig själva förstår man ju att EKONOMISKT blir det just nu inte möjligt för Europa att finansiera de åtgärder det krävs för oss att ta tillbaka 1991 års gränser. Fast önskan och viljan är stor hos de allra flesta är det med dagens situation inte militärt möjligt. Detta har även våra politiker börjat inse och jobbar därför hårt för att främja ett eldupphör. Tyvärr så behövs det 2 till Tango och när den andra partnern inte vill dansa behövs det ekonomiska tvångsmedel för att få partnern att inse detta. Därför har vi nu börjat prata om en vunnen fred.
Nu till Pikas artikel:
Disclaimer
Before I start this piece I wanted to clarify something from last week; I never voted for Trump, I never will. But that doesn’t mean I can’t see his point; Europe is too dependent on the US. As an example, this week Finland announced they are raising the defense budget to 3% of GDP – hardly enough to fend off an attack from Russia, which European intelligence agencies are sounding the alarm might happen. And hardly enough to support Ukraine to take back their land – much more is needed (my own estimate is a combined 10% of European GDP for one or two years, unless Russia implodes).
US – Europe relationship
However, that doesn’t defend Trumps or his Vice Presidents attack on European and Ukrainian sovereignty, which is creating more enemies than keeping friends honest. In a wonderful article from Foreign Affairs it is highlighted that Europe will have to change its stance with the US to something more of that of the Asian countries – as a trading partner and defense alliance, but more of a transactional partner than a strategic one. Out of the US friends there might only be Isr*el that will continue to have the unwavering support Europe thought it had.
So – how should Ukraine think and act? And what should it prioritize? The war on the front is stabilizing, with Russian gain hitting a 6 month all time low. While Ukrainian long range capabilities (wherein missiles is only one of them) are growing and hitting economic targets, Russian missiles are striking civilians and military targets. But support is still coming in, with reports of increased US support (measured as tonnage delivered to the Polish hub) while Russia’s own population grows poorer, with several companies sounding the alarm.
Planning to win the peace
Irregardless if there will be peace or not, Ukraine has, from my observations, wisely started to play to win the peace. What does this mean? It means that not all focus will be on winning the war, but also set the scene for success afterwards. Before we jump into Ukraine, I want to give some extremely oversimplified examples of how winning the war (or losing it) doesn’t always give you what you want.
Korea example
After WW2 the US backed a military regime in Korea, but after several civilian atrocities a Chinese and Russian backed communist guerilla started to wage war on the regime. The US sent forces and after fighting the Chinese regime sent their own forces to support. Both sides struggled with supplying their forward troops and at the risk of nuclear war both sides agreed to a truce. No side really won, and hostilities are still at risk of erupting.
But, who won? While South Korea technically lost the war (as did the North) by not regaining lost territories, it has won the peace. The country has transitioned into a democracy (with flaws, like all democracies have) and economically the country has experienced rapid growth. Samsung, LG Electronics and Hyundai are all well known brands. At the same time the North has become one of the toughest countries, with malnutrition, lack of education and with an average height of 15 cm less than its southern neighbour – even though the DNA is the same.
Very few of us are lying awake being upset about South Korea not winning the war, and several countries would help to support it if another conflict would erupt.
Post World War 2 example
After the unconditional surrender at the end of WW2 Germany and Japan were set to never rise again, both economically and politically (Japan was occupied for a very long time). However, fast forward to the 80’s and you would see two very successful countries (if you only look at West Germany) with thriving democracies. Both countries had been able to throw off the chains of old sins, and rebuilt their industrial base. They absolutely did not win the war, but in the long term they won as economic engines. Japan never regained some of their lost territories (some of which are still being discussed with their neighbours) and Germany, although united again, has lost parts to Poland and other countries.
Compare this with Great Britain, who although still is an economic superpower, lost the majority of their lands and almost all of their colonies. They might still consider themselves a superpower, but India, Singapore and other former parts are forever lost. They won the war, and deserve the credit, but peace has not been as easy on them as one might expect.
Isr*el-P*lestiine example
Isr*el, post its founding in the 40’s, has struggled to remain at peace. Several wars have been fought, and although Isr*el (one might argue) has won these wars, they have never created lasting peace, neither with neighbours or with part of the internal population. If you have spent time with the IDF you will be amazed about their professionalism and dedication, but there hasn’t been a political movement to create the type of peace North America or South America, or to some degree Europe, has experienced. At the same time the Palestinians have lost every war, but (their leadership) continue to seek conflict, making them start another war, and making them lose even more territory. The latest conflict, where I spent time, is laying the groundwork for them to lose even more land, while Isr*el is laying the groundwork for a future conflict in another 10-15 years. Neither side, for reasons that are logical in their own framework of thinking, can win a peace. This is the tragedy of the middle east, with great people on both sides that I have had the fortune of working with.
Vietnam
Vietnam was involved in several conflicts, both with the French, the Americans, the Cambodians and the Chinese. Yet, you go to Vietnam and there is no animosity towards France or America present. Tourists are welcomed, and the red carpet is pulled out for the companies seeking suppliers. However, that is not true for the Chinese, who should have been a logical ally, and was until the war with Cambodia. Vietnam is now supplying the West with vast amounts of components (I’m praying this does not end after the tariffs) and has secured a peace that has made them prosper, with a GDP per capita well above both Laos and Cambodia, its two neighbours.
Iraq and Afghanistan
The US led coalition quickly captured both of these countries, and yet after spending +20 years and vast amounts of capitals never created a lasting peace. Insurgents, creation of ISIS and the return of the Taliban have all been added to a list of failures. The Western way of living, with a framework for democracy, never played out as neo-cons expected. Soldiers to a large extent hid behind bases (estimates of +70% of western forces never left their bases more than 2 hours) and their failure to integrate with Afghans was best described in the following quote: “Camp Bastion was the hub in an operation designed to secure for others the freedoms they would have wished for themselves had they been less primitive”. Who would want to emulate a force that hides from you, yet expect you to want to become more like them? Again, an example that irregardless of money or resources, peace can not be won by soldiers, only war can be won by them.
Ukraines path
So what, in a very high level of abstraction, can Ukraine learn from historical examples?
The first is that security guarantees help set the scene for lasting peace. I believe the current Ukrainian administration is doing a good job of pushing for this, even at the expense of some of its materials. They might have to reach a long plan to get there, but as Mark Rutte is now confirming that “..There is an irreversible path to NATO. When exactly this will happen, we do not know.” They would do well to list this as its main priorities, including over regaining all lost ground. Maximalistic goals might strengthen the fighting spirit, but it can be hard to handle once a peace is brokered that does not fulfil this goal. Ukraine is threading lightly around this, stating that “The land can be returned later through diplomatic means” which I 100% think is the right way of planning.
Additionally, Ukraine and Europe need to break loose from Russia. This includes both political, but also from the dependence on Russian natural resources. Russian money that has kept several real estate markets as high as it is might unfortunately never return, and new sources might need to be found.
A strong Europe is the best deterrence Ukraine can get. The continued spend into defense must continue and Ukraine is wise not to disarm it’s military too fast, but to continue to integrate it into a wider alliance. Poland is the most forward looking nation, and strengthening political ties and starting to co-train units would set the scene for better planning.
Another great potential partner would be Turkiye. They have conflicting strategic outlooks against Russia, with the beginning of an alliance with Syria and several Central Asian countries, most notably Azerbaijan, that all want to contain Russia’s reach. Ukraines defense industry has ties, and several ships are ordered from turkish naval yards.
Isr*el is another. Conflict with Russia’s ally, Iran, is ongoing after the destruction of Hezbollah and the bombings. As Trump continues to pressure Iran backed groups around the Middle East Ukraine has a window of opportunity to help and “pay back” as Trump would put it. Isr*el does have ties with Russia that are hard to sever, but nothing in global politics is ever easy.
But the main point is that Ukraine needs to capitalize on a nation that has found itself during this war. As terrible as it has been, it has also created the best fielded army in Europe, the tolerance from veterans for corruption is very low and new regulations are slowly coming in to build the foundation for a thriving startup sector, with a strong pull from both the political, defense and venture capital parties. If I was a betting man I would bet that Ukraine will experience some of Europes strongest growth once this war is over, and that might be how they “win” in the long run.
Hoping that this was helpful.
// PIKA